School of Chemical Engineering

100 000 T.p.a. Acrylic Acid Plant Design

ENCH4DP

Final Design Report

2017

Sandile Mtolo 209535501

Supervisor/s name: Dr. D. Lokhat

Dr. W. Nelson

Due: 27th November 2017

 University of KwaZulu-Natal

School of Engineering

DESIGN PROJECT – Final Report

Date: 27th Novemberber 2017

Module Code: ENCH4DP Credits: 32

Module Title: Design Project

Declaration

Name Student Number Signature

Sandile Mtolo 209535501

The above mentioned students declare that

i) The information reported in this report/assignment/document, except where otherwise indicated, is

their original work.
ii) This report/assignment/document has not been submitted for any degree or examination at any other
university.
iii) This report/assignment/document does not contain other persons’ data, pictures, graphs or other
information, unless specifically acknowledged as being sourced from other persons.
iv) This report/assignment/document does not contain other persons’ writing, unless specifically
acknowledged as being sourced from other researchers/students/persons. Where other written
sources have been quoted, then:
a) Their words have been re-written but the general information attributed to them has been
referenced;
b) Where their exact words have been used, their writing has been placed inside quotation marks,
and referenced.
v) This report/document/assignment does not contain text, graphics or tables copied and pasted from
the Internet, unless specifically acknowledged, and the source being detailed in the
report/document/assignment and in the References sections.

Wikipedia's definition of plagiarism (3/12/2007) is "Plagiarism is the practice of claiming, or implying,

original authorship of, or incorporating material from, someone else's written or creative work, in
whole or in part, into one's own without adequate acknowledgment." I/We hereby declare that I/we
understand the meaning of plagiarism and recognise that submission of plagiarised work for
assessment is an offence that may result in disciplinary action being taken against me/us.
Executive summary:
An absorption column is required to recover acrylic and acetic acid from the gaseous reactor effluent
by contacting gas with water. Two incoming streams are handled by the column. The first is the gas
stream of 5756,14 kmol/h with 0,078 % (wt./wt.) acrylic acid. It enters at a temperature of 280,50 °C
and a pressure of 1,79 bar. The second stream contains processed water available from plant available
at 30 °C and 1 bar and it is mixed with 500 ppm of hydroquinone inhibitor. The choice of hydroquinone
as an inhibitor for this process was facilitated by its known properties to prevent polymerization of
acrylic acid that is susceptible to radical-initiated polymerization (Schork, 2006). The preferred
inhibitor dilution range is between 300ppm – 700 ppm (Elder J.E, 2006). The column has two exiting
streams, gaseous stream and aqueous liquid stream. The gaseous stream exits at a flowrate of 5782,13
kmol/h with 390,3 ppm (wt./wt.) of acrylic acid and 23.98 ppm (wt./wt.) of acetic acid. It exits at a
temperature of 70,13 °C and a pressure of 1 bar. The second exiting stream is the product stream at a
total flowrate of 1576, 9 kmol/h. This stream contains 55.2 % (wt./wt.) acrylic acid (main product). It
exits at a temperature of 81, 86 °C and a pressure of 1 bar. This stream is cooled to 46.5 °C prior to the
LLE unit.
The product specification requires 100 000 tonnes per year of ester grade acrylic acid (minimum purity
94% (wt.) by oxidation of propylene (94% purity on molar basis). This acid product requires
approximately 817.33 kmol/h of processed water. The use of packing columns is recommended for
diameters less than 0.6 m (Seader, et al., 2011). The obtained diameter was 5,21 m, thus, a packed
column couldn’t be chosen. Sieve trays (as opposed to bubble or valve-type trays) were chosen because
of their ease of installation and lower cost compared to packed columns. The choice of sieve trays was
also facilitated by their well-known design procedures, low fouling tendency and large capacity (Seader,
et al., 2011). The design specifies a column with approximately 24.8 m of height, and containing 60
sieve plates. Processed water with 300 ppm of hydroquinone inhibitor is added to tray 1 (the top tray),
and recycle stream is added at tray 69, one stage above the base stage. Single pass crossflow-type trays
are employed for all the plates. The column operating pressure is 1 bar and the operating temperature
range is from 69,85°C to 81.8 °C. A safety factor of 10% was accounted for in the design temperature
and pressure. The total weight of a column vessel including the shell weight, plates and insulations is
1096,85 kN which is equivalent to 111847,55 kg. The absorption column and its associated structures
(insulation, trays and vessel) are expected to cost in the region of R 8,8 million. Detailed calculations
concerning the absorption column design are presented in Appendix F.

i|Page
Table of Contents
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................ ii
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................ iv
Nomenclature ........................................................................................................................................ v
Material Balance ................................................................................................................................... 1
Discussion .............................................................................................................................................. 3
Property method selection: .............................................................................................................. 3
Process design and Optimisation: .................................................................................................... 3
Material of construction: .................................................................................................................. 5
Mechanical design of column: .......................................................................................................... 5
Turndown ratio ................................................................................................................................. 6
Estimating Purchased Equipment Costs ......................................................................................... 6
UNIT SPECIFICATION SHEET: A-101 ....................................................................................... 7
............................................................................................................................................................ 7
Appendix A: Supplementary Design Results .................................................................................. 8
Appendix B: Design Algorithm and supporting data .................................................................... 9
Appendix C: Sensitivity Results..................................................................................................... 10
Appendix D: Flange Design Data .................................................................................................. 15
Appendix E: Sources of Data ......................................................................................................... 16
Appendix F: Sample Calculations ................................................................................................. 22
Mechanical Design............................................................................................................................ 22
Absorption column purchased equipment cost ............................................................................. 28
References:........................................................................................................................................... 29
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................. 30

ii | P a g e
List of Figures

Figure 1: Comparison of experimental and Property Method data at 1 bar (AA/H2O) .......................... 8
Figure 2: Optimization strategy methodology flow chart ....................................................................... 9
Figure 3: Showing water flowrate vs AA-Purity vs Recovery ............................................................. 10
Figure 4: Showing Number of stages vs AA-recovery and AA-Purity................................................. 10
Figure 5: Showing number of stages vs Bottom temperature ............................................................... 11
Figure 6: Showing Pressure vs AA-Purity vs Bottoms Temperature.................................................... 11
Figure 7: Showing split fraction vs AA-Recovery and AA- Purity ...................................................... 12
Figure 8: Showing split fraction vs Water to LLE , and bottoms temperature ..................................... 12
Figure 9: Water sensitivity results from Aspen .................................................................................... 13
Figure 10: Number of stages results from Aspen ................................................................................. 13
Figure 11: Pressure sensitivity results from Aspen ............................................................................... 14
Figure 12: Split fraction sensitivity Results from Aspen ...................................................................... 14
Figure 13: Purchased Equipment Cost for Common Plant Equipment ................................................. 16
Figure 14: Typical standard flange design (Sinnot K, 2005) ................................................................ 17
Figure 15: Showing all contacting edges fillet welded ......................................................................... 18
Figure 16: Typical skirt-support designs (a) Straight skirt (b) Conical skirt ........................................ 18
Figure 17: Anchor bolt chair design ..................................................................................................... 18
Figure 18:K1 value versus Flooding velocity, FLV ............................................................................. 19
Figure 19: Selection of liquid flow arrangement .................................................................................. 19
Figure 20: Entrainment correlation for sieve plates .............................................................................. 19
Figure 21: Relation between downcomer area and weir length ............................................................ 20
Figure 22: Weep point correlation ........................................................................................................ 20
Figure 23: Discharge coefficient, sieve plates ...................................................................................... 20
Figure 24: Showing Simulation layout from Aspen plus ...................................................................... 21

iii | P a g e
List of Tables

Table 1: Showing Material Balance Results ........................................................................................... 1

Table 2: Binary interaction parameters ................................................................................................... 8
Table 3: Showing flange design results ................................................................................................ 15
Table 4: Anchor Bolt Chair Design) bolt size use is M24 bolts (BS 4190: 1967) ................................ 17
Table 5:Typical design stresses for various material of plate ............................................................... 22

iv | P a g e
Nomenclature

Name Symbol Units

Efficiency -
Molar average liquid viscosity mNs.m-2
Average liquid relative volatility -
Vapour velocity m.s-1
Plate spacing m
Vapour density - kg.m-3
Liquid density - kg.m-3
Vapour rate kg.s-1
Column diameter m
Total column section area m2
Cross sectional area of downcomer m2
Net area for vapour-liquid disengagement m2
Active area m2
Hole area m2
Perforated area m2
Clearance area under downcomer m2
Flooding vapour velocity m.s-1
Constant -
Liquid-vapour flow factor -
Vapour mass flow rate kg.s-1
Liquid mass flow rate kg.s-1
Actual velocity m.s-1
Minimum vapour velocity m.s-1
Hole diameter m
Weir crest mm
Weir length m
Hole pitch
Total plate pressure drop Pa
Total plate pressure head mm
Orifice coefficient -
Residual head mm

v|Page
Material Balance
Table 1: Showing Material Balance Results

Stream no: 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Stream name : Gas in Cooled Gas in Water in + Inhibitor Gas out Aqueous stream Recycle Split to LLE To LLE Cooled Recycle
Mole Flow kmol/hr
Propylene 13,30 13,30 0 13,30 0,02 0,02 0,00 0,00 0,02
Ethane 6,76 6,76 0 6,76 0,01 0,01 0 0 0,01
Propane 6,76 6,76 0 6,76 0,01 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,01
Oxygen 314,65 314,65 0 311,45 16,02 12,82 3,20 3,20 12,82
Nitrogen 3547,15 3547,15 0 3545,89 6,32 5,05 1,26 1,26 5,05
Water 1619,59 1619,59 730,0005 1832,01 2587,98 2070,39 517,60 517,60 2070,39
Acetaldehyde 7,99 7,99 0 7,91 0,41 0,33 0,08 0,08 0,33
Carbon dioxide 68,72 68,72 0 68,64 0,40 0,32 0,08 0,08 0,32
Acetylene 2,91 2,91 0 0,20 13,52 10,82 2,70 2,70 10,82
Acrylic acid 168,29 168,29 0 3,17 825,59 660,48 165,12 165,12 660,48
Acrolein 0,02 0,02 0 0,02 0 0 0 0 0
Hydroquinone 0,00 0,0000 0,0005 0,00 0 0 0 0 0

Mass Frac
Propylene 0,0036 0,0036 0,0 0,0038 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
Ethane 0,0013 0,0013 0,0 0,0014 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
Propane 0,0019 0,0019 0,0 0,0020 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
Oxygen 0,06 0,0648 0,00 0,07 0,0048 0,0048 0,0048 0,0048 0,0048
Nitrogen 0,64 0,6396 0,00 0,68 0,0016 0,0016 0,0016 0,0016 0,0016
Water 0,19 0,1878 1,00 0,22 0,43 0,43 0,43 0,43 0,43
Acetaldehyde 0,002 0,002 0,000 0,002 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000
Carbon dioxide 0,019 0,019 0,0 0,021 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000
Acetylene 0,001 0,001 0,0 0,000 0,008 0,008 0,008 0,008 0,008
Acrylic acid 0,078 0,078 0,0 0,002 0,55 0,55 0,55 0,55 0,55
Acrolein 0 0 0,0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hydroquinone 0,00E+00 0,00E+00 4,19E-06 3,06E-11 2,56E-06 2,56E-06 2,56E-06 2,56E-06 2,56E-06

1|Page
Stream no: 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 10
Aqueous
Stream name : Gas in Cooled Gas in Water in + Inhibitor Gas out stream Recycle Split to LLE To LLE
Mole Flow kmol/hr
Propylene 13,30 13,30 0 13,30 0,02 0,02 0,00 0,00
Ethane 6,76 6,76 0 6,76 0,01 0,01 0 0
Propane 6,76 6,76 0 6,76 0,01 0,01 0,00 0,00
Oxygen 314,65 314,65 0 311,45 16,02 12,82 3,20 3,20
Nitrogen 3547,15 3547,15 0 3545,89 6,32 5,05 1,26 1,26
Water 1619,59 1619,59 730,0005 1832,01 2587,98 2070,39 517,60 517,60
Acetaldehyde 7,99 7,99 0 7,91 0,41 0,33 0,08 0,08
Carbon dioxide 68,72 68,72 0 68,64 0,40 0,32 0,08 0,08
Acetylene 2,91 2,91 0 0,20 13,52 10,82 2,70 2,70
Acrylic acid 168,29 168,29 0 3,17 825,59 660,48 165,12 165,12
Acrolein 0,02 0,02 0 0,02 0 0 0 0
Hydroquinone 0,00 0,0000 0,0005 0,00 0 0 0 0

2|Page
Discussion
Property method selection:

Selection of the proper method for estimating properties is one of the most vital steps that will affect
the rest of the simulation. Therefore, it is important to carefully consider the choice of the correct
property method to estimate the different properties. The NRTL-HOC and UNIFAC thermodynamic
property models were tested against the VLE experimental obtained from Aspen Plus® at the column
operating pressure of 1 bar. This was done to validate and choose the best property model that best
represents the system comprising of the main components acrylic acid and water. In each of these cases,
the goal was to find the experimental data that best suits the model with least errors. In order to
determine if the chosen property method was accurate and acceptable for usage in the absorption tower,
binary interaction parameter availability was checked on Aspen Plus®. Binary experimental data was
obtained from NIST sources in ASPEN. The UNIFAC thermodynamic property model was employed
to estimate the missing binary parameters. The NRTL-HOC method was selected to describes the phase
equilibrium behaviour of this process with NRTL to account for non-ideal liquid behaviour and HOC
(Hayden-O’Connell) to account for possible associate behaviour of acrylic acid and acetic acid in
vapour phase (I-Lung Chien, 2017). This property method also incorporates the chemical theory of
dimerization which is a possible phenomenon to form in this process.

From the comparison between the VLE data in Appendix A (Figure 1), it can be seen that NRTL-HOC
model is closer to the experimental data between acrylic acid mole fraction regions of 0.3 to 1. UNIFAC,
UNIFAC-HOC, NRTL models deviate to the experimental model for the vapour mole fraction and also
show a deviation for the liquid mole fraction in the acrylic acid mole fraction range of 0 to 1. The
NRTL-NTH models seem to better fit the liquid mole fraction of the experimental data. However, this
model does not display a better fit for the vapor liquid mole fraction of the experimental data. It can be
seen that the NRTL-HOC has less deviations from the experimental data compared to the UNIFAC
and the other models for acrylic acid vaapor and liquid mole fraction in the range of 0 to 1. It can
thus be concluded that the NRTL-HOC model better represents the experimental equilibrium data
because of the close fit to experimental data. Although the experimental and predicted values by the
UNIFAC method for acrylic acid and water binary parameters were comparable, the UNIFAC model
may have continuously underestimated these binary parameters and thus did not give a good
approximation of the experimental data as it is a predictive method.

Process design and Optimisation:

Simulation of an absorption column was modelled using the Radfrac column in ASPEN. The column
consist of four streams and a recycle stream. The first two streams are; the gaseous stream from the
reactor section and cooling water stream available from plant. The other two exiting streams are; the
exiting gaseous stream which is sent to the incineration unit to be burnt and the aqueous stream which
is sent to the LLE unit, part of this aqueous stream is recycled back to the absorption unit. The aqueous
solution leaves the bottom of the absorber at 81.86°C, and is first cooled to 46.5°C via a heat exchanger
before being pumped to a liquid-liquid extraction unit. The absorber is operated at a pressure of 1 bar.
Water which is available on the plant at 30°C, is mixed with 500 ppm hydroquinone inhibitor and fed
into the top of the absorber and this stream is used to cool the reactor effluent by making direct counter-
current contact with the inlet gas stream. Hydroquinone is a preferred inhibitor to further prevent
polymerization of acrylic acid, and other monomers that are susceptible to radical-initiated
polymerization (Schork, 2006). The polymerization of acrylic acid can be very violent, evolving

3|Page
considerable heat and pressure and ejecting hot vapour and polymer, which may auto
ignite. An explosion hazard exists due to extremely rapid pressure build up. An absorption
column consisting of acrylic acid may explode due to ("runaway") polymerization when the
suitable inhibitor is not added and when the temperatures exceed 90°C (The Dow Chemical
Company, 2017).The main objective of the column optimization was to produce 55% wt. purity of
acrylic acid and to recover atleast 99 % of acrylic in the aqueous stream with an optimal least amount
of water being fed in. An optimization was also bounded by the column constraint of maximum
temperature that can be reached in the bottom aqueous stream. The temperature of the liquid bottom
stream had to be kept below 90 0C (Lung Chien I, 2017) at optimal conditions to prevent polymerization
of acrylic acid for safety considerations such as pressure build up in the column which may lead in to
explosion hazards as already mentioned. The optimization methodology for this absorption column is
given in Appendix B.

The main optimisation variables in the absorption column were number of stages and incoming water
flowrate. The acrylic acid concentration in the aqueous acrylic acid stream is typically in the range of
32-55wt% (Elder J.E, 2006). The number of stages were varied from stages ten to an optimal value that
will readily produce a maximum purity of 55% wt acrylic acid with a recovery of at approximately 99%
(Lung Chien I, 2017) in the aqueous product stream. The optimum number of stages was found to be
sixty as this produces the maximum amount of (55 wt %) acrylic acid with a maximum recovery of 98
% (Appendix C, figure 4). A sensitivity analysis was done by varying the incoming water molar flowrate
between the 300 kmol/h and 1000 kmol/h and subsequently observing the amount of acrylic acid that
can be produced in the bottom aqueous stream. From the results obtained (Appendix, Figure 3 ) it can
be seen that the incoming water molar flowrate required to produce 55% wt acrylic acid is 730 kmol/h.
with an acrylic acid recovery of approximately 98%. From Appendix C, one can see that the amount of
acrylic acid recovered in the bottom of the aqueous stream reaches a peak value of 100% at an incoming
water molar flowrate of 1000 kmol/h. This is the optimum water flowrate required to recover 100%
acrylic acid in the bottom stream. The operating water flowrate however, was chosen as 730 kmol/h as
it recovers 98.1 % of acrylic acid in the bottom stream which is rather economical and feasible than to
use an extra incoming water flowrate of 270 kmol/h to increase the recovery of acrylic acid to 100%.
Once also has to be precautious when it comes to using a large amount of water to cool the incoming
gases as it can results in the increase utility costs. 730 kmol/ hr of incoming water operating flowrate is
equivalent to 13151, 2 kg/hr while the optimum flowrate is approximately 18000 kg/hr. Therefore, it is
more economical to operate at 730 kmol/h since it produces the required amount of acrylic acid purity
at an appreciable recovery. The temperature of the bottom stream also had to be kept under the required
process specification of less 900C in these optimal conditions to prevent dimerization. From the results
obtained, (Appendix C, Figure 5) the temperature of the bottoms at these optimal conditions is around
73 0C which is well below the maximum specification of 900C. It can thus be concluded that
dimerization will not occur in the process in these conditions as the rate of dimer formation is
temperature dependent. Although, the formation of dimer is not hazardous but it may affect the
performance of the acrylic acid in some applications (The Dow Chemical Company, 2017).

Another important parameter that has a huge effect on the column operation is the column pressure.
The column pressure was varied from 0.1 to 1 bar to find an optimal pressure that will produce 55% wt
of acrylic acid (Appendix C, Figure 6). The optimal pressure required to achieve this was atmospheric
pressure 1 bar. From the results obtained in Appendix C, it can be seen that as the pressure values
decreases or approach vacuum, the purity of acrylic acid produced in the bottom stream increases.
However, the column was set to operate at atmospheric pressure as operating at vacuum is not

4|Page
economically attractive since maintaining the pressure at vacuum column increases the duties and
consequently the operating cost. The temperature at this optimum pressure of 1 bar is again around 73
0
C (less than 90 0C) as per process requirements. A recycle feed stream required an optimization for the
split fraction of product stream. The split fraction was varied from 0.1 to 0.9 while observing the acrylic
acid purity and recovery. The split fraction required to produce 55 wt. % acrylic acid was found to be
0.8 and this corresponds to a recovery of 0.98% and bottoms temperature of 73.2 0C (Appendix C)
Operating at a split fraction of below 0, 8 is not advisable as the required acrylic acid purity of 55 wt %
cannot met below this value.

Material of construction:
Due to large corrosive effects of acrylic and acetic acid, the column will be manufactured from type
304L stainless steel (Brian Kirsch, 1999). This material offers a main advantage of excellent resistance
to intergranular and general corrosion. The flanges are also manufactured by stainless steel material
with the gaskets being Stainless steel reinforced with graphite most commonly used for corrosive
substances as in this case. (Sinnot & Towler, 2009).

Mechanical design of column:

The design temperature and pressure was taken as 10 per cent above operating conditions (Sinnot &
Towler, 2009). This 10% over-design safety factor was added to the column so that it can withstand
extreme conditions above operating conditions. The shell and head thickness specification was based
upon matching the operating and extraneous stresses encountered against the recommended design
stress governed by the ASME code. The design of absorption column was guided by the ASME
code which is an agreed safe procedure for designing vessels (Sinnot & Towler, 2009). The
thickness of head was found to be 6 mm (including a 4mm corrosion allowance). From the
calculations, the flat head proved to be inefficient as its thickness was more than the column thickness.
A flanged domed head was rather selected. From the two domed head, the ellipsoidal head was found
to be the most economical as it’s had the same thickness as column. A 6mm minimum thickness
will ensure a smooth operation of the vessel to withstand any disturbances, loads and also its own
height. The added corrosion allowance of 4mm accounts for corrosion resistance and safe operation of
the vessel. Due to corrosive conditions of the process, weld neck flanges are used for all outlet and
inlet nozzles. The column vessel will be sealed using a gasket flange with a minimum thickness of
60.1 mm. The column will have 3 manholes of typically 0.6 m and one manhole will be the skirt
access (ICARUS Corporate, 1998). The column is supported by straight skirts with a height of 7.8 m
and thickness of 6mm (corrosion allowance of 2mm included), thickness same as the cylindrical
thickness (Sinnot & Towler, 2009). These dimensions both satisfied the design criteria and hence, the
skirts are able to handle the weight of the vessel as well as other stresses such as bending and wind
loading acting on it (Sinnot & Towler, 2009).

The diameter of the column was obtained from ASPEN simulation as 5.2 m. Sieve trays are used
throughout the absorption column. All the sieve plates have a hole diameter of 5 mm. The sieve-plate
weir length is taken as 0.75 times the column internal diameter. The downcomer area is sized using a
graph relating downcomer area and weir length and is determined to be 12% of the column area. The
weir height is obtained from charts relating gas and liquid throughout, tray spacing and weepage limits
(Sinnot & Towler, 2009). The overall height of the column depends on the plate spacing. Plate
spacings from 0.15 m (6 in.) to 1 m (36 in.) are normally used (Sinnot & Towler, 2009). The spacing
chosen was 0.61 m and it was based on the column diameter and operating conditions. The principal
factors that were considered when comparing the performance of bubble-cap, sieve and valve plates
were: cost, capacity, operating range, efficiency and pressure drop (Sinnot & Towler, 2009).
5|Page
The plates are supported on a ring welded round vessel wall, and on beams. Lateral ‘L’ type beams/
skirts provide support for the 0.6 m thick sieve plates. A feature of all plates in the column is a manway.
This manway is necessary to provide access to all sections of the column. The manway is secured with
removable clamps when not in use. Manway sizes for 2 to 5 m OD are typically around 0.8 m (USA,
2012) Another interesting feature of the plates is that the down comer and weir arrangement are secured
in slides so that their height can be adjusted for fine tuning of the column, or if feed flowrates are
permanently changed. Weepage holes are drilled in the tray inlet weirs to provide easy drainage in the
event of a maintenance and shutdown. Gas velocities were provided in the column to prevent significant
weepage of liquid through the plate holes. Weepage is the phenomenon whereby liquid starts to
percolate through the sieve tray holes instead of flowing over the weir. This occurs with low vapour
velocities. The minimum required vapour velocity through the holes in this column was found to be
13.87 m/s while the actual minimum velocity is 21,09 m/s .Thus, since actual minimum velocity is
greater than minimum required vapour velocity, weeping will not occur.

The plate pressure drop of the column with the plate thickness/hole diameter of 1.0, and Ah/Ap equal
to Ah/Aa = 0.1, Co = 0.84. The calculated pressure drop of the column is 1,29 kPa. Sufficient residence
time was allowed in the downcomer for the entrained vapor to disengage from the liquid stream; to
prevent heavily “aerated” liquid being carried under the downcomer. A residence time of at least 3
seconds is recommended (Sinnot & Towler, 2009).The obtained residence time was 9,2 s and is
satisfactory. Entrainment was estimated from the correlation given by Fair (Sinnot & Towler, 2009)
Appendix F. The percent flooding is just below the design figure of 80%, thus entrainment will not
occur. Vessel weight was found to be 211,98 𝑘N. The weight of plates was found to be 10.26 𝑘N and
the insulation weight was found to be 103.582 𝑘N. The total weight was obtained by adding the
insulation, tray and shell weight. Total weight was determined to be 1096.85 kN. Wind loading was
found to be 6051189.49 Nm. Material of construction for skirt support is stainless steel. The assumption
made was that the maximum dead weight load on the skirt will occurs when the vessel is full with water
(Towler, 1999). Circumference of bolt circle was calculated to be 5422π. The Bolt diameter of 22.15
mm was obtained and , Hence, from bolt size nominal diameter (BS 4190: 1967) bolt chosen was, M24
with root area = 353 mm Appendix F. Flange sizing and design results are available in Appendix D.

Turndown ratio
A 75% turndown ratio was used to verify if the process design could handle situations when there is
less feed to the process. The Aspen simulation was able to accommodate this decreased in flow without
any problems.
Estimating Purchased Equipment Costs
The factorial method of cost estimation is based on purchased equipment costs and therefore requires
good estimates for equipment costs. Costs of single pieces of equipment are also often needed for minor
revamp and de-bottlenecking projects. The best source of purchased equipment costs is recent data on
actual prices paid for similar equipment (Sinnot & Towler, 2009).
After a detailed design of an absorber column, operation’s cost was estimated using empirical size-
factor cost correlations reported by (Towler, 1999). In total, the purchased equipment cost was
determined by taking into the account the shell, tray and insulation weight (Refer to Appendix F). The
cost estimation functions sourced were based on historical data which had to be updated to prices that
it would be sold for at the current time. Updating of costs were facilitated through the use of the
Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI) which multiplies the base cost by an update cost factor
depending on the year for which that base cost is applicable. The total purchased equipment cost of
absorption column amounted to R 8,8 million.

6|Page
UNIT SPECIFICATION SHEET: A-101
Company: KZN Chemicals (Pty) Ltd Standards: ASME
Unit Description: Absorption Column Unit ID: A-101
Design Pressure bar 1.1
Operating Pressure bar 1
Design Temperature °C 89.9
Operating Temperature °C 81.8
TOP BOTTOM
Liquid Liquid
Gas in in Gas out out Recycle
5756.1
Total molar flowrate kmol/h 4 730.001 5796.09 690.05 2760.24
Total mass flowrate kg/h 155355 1315.2 146974.0 21531.55 86126.36
Total volumetric flowrate m3/h 147944 13.29 164941,8 22.47 89.89
Valid phase Vapour Liquid Vapour Liquid Liquid
Density kg/m3 1.52 989.12 0.89 958.08 958.08
MECHANICAL DATA
Shell type Vertical sphercal shell
Head type Ellipsoidal
Material of construction Stainless steel 304 L
Column diameter m 5.2
Column height m 24.8
Number of nozzles 7280
2
Design stress N/mm 135
Corrosion allowance mm 4
Head thickness mm 6
Shell thickness mm 6
Vessel weight kN 211.98
SUPPORT AND EXTERNAL STRESSES
Wind loading kN/m 1.28
Bending moment at bottom of
vessel kN.m 2142,11
Vessel external support type - Straight skirt “L” Type
Dead weight stress on external
support kN/mm2 2.14
Bending stress at base of
external support kN/mm2 0.01947
NOTES:
(a) All drawing dimensions in m. unless
stated otherwise (e) Gasket minimum thickness: 1.5 mm
(b) Nozzles flange type: Weld neck ANSI
B16.5 (f) Same Gasket type used for all flanges in this column
(c) Head flange type: Weld neck ANSI
Class 150 (h) Flange face type: Raised face
(d) Gasket type: LG-SS(stainless steel
with graphite) (i) All the flange sizing and results are in Appendix D

7|Page
Appendix A: Supplementary Design Results

Figure 1: Comparison of experimental and Property Method data at 1 bar (AA/H2O)

Table 2: Binary interaction parameters

Component i WATER WATER ACETI-01

Component j ACETI-01 ACRYL-01 ACRYL-01
0 0 0
Temperature units C C C
Source VLE-HOC VLE-HOC VLE-HOC
Property units
AIJ 3,3293 0 0
AJI -1,9763 0 0
BIJ -723,888 919,4562 283,0157
BJI 609,8886 -293,649 42,568
CIJ 0,3 0,3 0,3
DIJ 0 0 0
EIJ 0 0 0
EJI 0 0 0
FIJ 0 0 0
FJI 0 0 0
TLOWER 20 100,4 117,8
TUPPER 229,75 120,5 140,4

8|Page
Appendix B: Design Algorithm and supporting data

No
 Estimate the missing
 Choose property method parameters using Do the model
Evaluate system results compare
components  Check for binary UNIFAC
interaction for all binary  Compare model results to well with
pairs experimental data experimental?

No
Yes

Is acrylic acid  Choose column operating

Purity 32% conditions
Vary the total Set Design spec for 99.9%
In the exit
number of stages Acrylic and acetic acid  Run simulation and obtain
aqueous stream ? the preliminary results for
unit optimization

No
Yes
No

Run sensitivity to obtain Run the simulation with

Is T < 90 Yes Is Acrylic acid Yes Optimum amount of inlet obtained optimum values
In aqueous stream? Recovery > 99 %
water flowrate, column and obtain optimum result
pressure and water to LLE without a recycle stream

 Column sizing, Preform

No No
hydraulic calculations to No
Check Weeping,
entrainment and flooding Yes Yes Is acrylic acid Add a recycle stream and
 Mechanical design and Is Acrylic acid Yes Vary the split fraction
Is T < 90 Purity 32% re-run the simulation to
sketch Recovery > 99 % In the exit And recycle feed stage
In aqueous stream? optimize for the recycle feed
 Column cost evaluation aqueous stream ? stage and split fraction

Figure 2: Optimization strategy methodology flow chart

9|Page
Appendix C: Sensitivity Results

Water inlet (kmol/hr) vs AA-Purity (%) and AA-Recovery

1 1

0,9
0,85
AA-Recovery (%)

0,8

AA-Purity (%)
0,7 0,7

0,6
0,55
0,5

0,4 0,4
300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000
Water flowrate in (kmol/hr)

Water inlet (kmol/hr) vs AA-Recovery (%) Water inlet (kmol/hr) vs AA-Purity

Figure 3: Showing water flowrate vs AA-Purity vs Recovery

Number of stages (N) vs Purity (%) and Recovery(%)

0,555 0,99
0,98
0,55
0,97
AA-Purity (%)

AA-Recovery

0,545 0,96
0,95
0,54
0,94
0,535 0,93
0,92
0,53
0,91
0,525 0,9
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Number of stages

Number of stages vs Purity (%) Number of stages vs Recovery (%)

Figure 4: Showing Number of stages vs AA-recovery and AA-Purity

10 | P a g e
 Number of stages vs Bottoms Temp (C)
73,12
73,1
Bottoms Temperature (C)

73,08
73,06
73,04
73,02
73
72,98
72,96
72,94
72,92
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Number of stages

Number of stages vs Bottoms Temp (C)

Figure 5: Showing number of stages vs Bottom temperature

Pressure (bar) vs AA-Purity (%) and Bottoms

Temp(C)
0,85 80

0,8
70
0,75
Temperature (C)

0,7 60
AA-Purity (%)

0,65
50
0,6

0,55 40

0,5
30
0,45

0,4 20
0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1
Pressure (bar)

Pressure(bar) Vs Purity (%) Pressure (Bar) vs Temperature (C)

Figure 6: Showing Pressure vs AA-Purity vs Bottoms Temperature

11 | P a g e
 Split fraction vs AA-purity(%) and AA-recovery (%)
0,99 0,59
0,988 0,58
0,986 0,57
AA-recovery (%)

0,984
0,56
0,982
0,55
0,98
0,54
0,978
0,53
0,976
0,974 0,52

0,972 0,51
0,97 0,5
0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9
Split fraction

Split fraction vs Recovery (%) Split fraction vs AA-Purity (%)

Figure 7: Showing split fraction vs AA-Recovery and AA- Purity

Split fraction vs Bottoms Temp(C) and Water to LLE

(kmol/h)
650 73,4
73,3
Water to LLE (kmol/h)

600 73,2 Bottoms Temp (C)

73,1
550 73
72,9
500 72,8
72,7
450 72,6
72,5
400 72,4
0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9
Split fraction

Split fraction vs Water to LLE (kmol/hr) Split fraction vs Bottoms Temp (C)

Figure 8: Showing split fraction vs Water to LLE , and bottoms temperature

12 | P a g e
Sensitivity Results from Aspen.
Sensitivity Results Curve
0,775 1,00

0,750
0,95

0,725
0,90
0,700

0,85
0,675

0,650 0,80

0,625
0,75 AA-Purity (%)
AA-Recovery (%)
XLL E/XF
PURITY

0,600

0,70
0,575

0,550 0,65

0,525
0,60

0,500
0,55
0,475

0,50
0,450

0,425 0,45
300 325 350 375 400 425 450 475 500 525 550 575 600 625 650 675 700 725 750 775 800 825 850 875 900 925 950 975 1000
VARY 1 H2O-INHI MIXED WATER MOLEFLOW KMOL/HR

Figure 9: Water sensitivity results from Aspen

Sensitivity Results Curve

530,0 73,12 0,553 0,980
529,5 0,552
529,0 0,975
0,551
528,5 73,10
0,550
0,970
528,0 0,549
527,5 0,548
73,08 0,965
527,0 0,547
526,5 0,960
0,546
526,0
73,06 0,545
525,5 0,955
0,544
525,0
0,543
WA TERLL E KMO L/HR

0,950
524,5 73,04
0,542
BO TTEMP C

Water to LLE (kmol/hr)

524,0
XLL E/XF
PURITY

0,541 0,945 Bottom stream temp (Celcius)

523,5 AA-Purity (%)
0,540
523,0 73,02 AA-Recovery (%)
0,940
0,539
522,5
0,538
522,0 0,935
73,00 0,537
521,5
0,536 0,930
521,0
520,5 0,535
72,98 0,925
520,0 0,534

519,5 0,533
0,920
519,0 0,532
72,96
518,5 0,531
0,915
518,0 0,530
517,5 72,94 0,529 0,910
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
VARY 1 A-101 RECYC-CO FEEDSSTAGE

Figure 10: Number of stages results from Aspen

13 | P a g e
 Sensitivity Results Curve
75 0,82

TEMP C
0,80 PURITY
70
0,78

65 0,76

0,74

60
0,72

0,70
55
TEM P C

PURITY

0,68

50
0,66

0,64
45

0,62

40 0,60

0,58
35
0,56

30 0,54
0,100 0,125 0,150 0,175 0,200 0,225 0,250 0,275 0,300 0,325 0,350 0,375 0,400 0,425 0,450 0,475 0,500 0,525 0,550 0,575 0,600 0,625 0,650 0,675 0,700 0,725 0,750 0,775 0,800 0,825 0,850 0,875 0,900 0,925 0,950 0,975 1,000
VARY 1 A-101 1 P-SPECPRES BAR

Figure 11: Pressure sensitivity results from Aspen

Sensitivity Results Curve

73,35 0,590 640 0,990

73,30 0,585 TEMP C

PURITY
620 WATERLLE KMOL/HR
73,25 0,580 0,988
XLLE/XF
73,20 0,575
600
73,15 0,986
0,570

73,10
0,565 580
73,05 0,984
0,560
73,00
560
0,555
WA TERLL E KMO L/HR

72,95 0,982
0,550
TEM P C

XLL E/XF
PURITY

72,90 540
0,545
72,85 0,980
0,540
520
72,80
0,535
72,75 0,978
0,530 500
72,70

0,525
72,65 0,976
480
72,60 0,520

72,55 0,515 0,974

460

72,50 0,510

72,45 0,505 440 0,972

0,100 0,125 0,150 0,175 0,200 0,225 0,250 0,275 0,300 0,325 0,350 0,375 0,400 0,425 0,450 0,475 0,500 0,525 0,550 0,575 0,600 0,625 0,650 0,675 0,700 0,725 0,750 0,775 0,800 0,825 0,850 0,875 0,900
VARY 1 SPLITTER RECYCLE FRACFRAC

Figure 12: Split fraction sensitivity Results from Aspen

14 | P a g e
Appendix D: Flange Design Data
Harker equation was used to calculate the nozzle diameters so that the flange could be selected.
Table 3: Showing flange design results

TOP BOTTOM RECYCLE

N1 N2 N3 N4 N5
Diameter (mm) 80 150 150 15 20
Flange size (mm)
a 110 182 182 30 40
b 128 202 202 40 50
c 150 225 225 55 65
d 190 265 265 80 90
e 18 18 18 11 11
f 34 44 44 20 24
g 16 18 18 12 14

Drilling data:
No. of Holes 4 8 8 4 4
Bolting M16 M16 M16 M10 M10
Bolt hole diameter (mm) -e 18 18 18 11 14

15 | P a g e
Appendix E: Sources of Data

Figure 13: Purchased Equipment Cost for Common Plant Equipment

16 | P a g e
Table 4: Anchor Bolt Chair Design) bolt size use is M24 bolts (BS 4190: 1967)

Figure 14: Typical standard flange design (Sinnot K, 2005)

17 | P a g e
Skirt Design

Figure 15: Showing all contacting edges fillet welded

Figure 16: Typical skirt-support designs (a) Straight skirt (b) Conical skirt

Figure 17: Anchor bolt chair design

18 | P a g e
Figure 18:K1 value versus Flooding velocity, FLV

Figure 19: Selection of liquid flow arrangement

Figure 20: Entrainment correlation for sieve plates

19 | P a g e
Figure 21: Relation between downcomer area and weir length

Figure 22: Weep point correlation

Figure 23: Discharge coefficient, sieve plates

20 | P a g e
Figure 24: Showing Simulation layout from Aspen plus

21 | P a g e
Appendix F: Sample Calculations
Mechanical Design
Column Thickness

For a cylindrical shell the minimum thickness required to resist internal pressure can be determined
using equation below:

𝑃𝑖 𝐷𝑖
𝑒= … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … (1)
2𝑓 − 𝑃𝑖

Where 𝐷𝑖 = internal diameter (mm)

𝑃𝑖 = Internal pressure (N/mm2)

𝑓 = Design stress (N/mm2)

For vessels under internal pressure, the design pressure was taken as 10 percent above the normal
working pressure to avoid spurious operation during minor process upsets as well as the design
temperature.

𝐼𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒, 𝑃𝑖 = ( 1)(1,1) = 0,11 𝑁/𝑚𝑚2

𝐼𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒, 𝑇𝑖 = (81,8)(1.1) = 89,98°𝐶

𝐼𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟, 𝐷𝑖 = 5260 𝑚𝑚

Table 5: Typical design stresses for various material of plate

22 | P a g e
Stainless steel 18Cr/8Ni, Ti stabilized (304) due to corrosive effects of acrylic and acetic acid.

Then the design stress, f (N/mm2) = 150

1 5.2
= (3 + √ )
𝑃𝑖 𝐷𝑖 4 0.316
𝑒= … … … … … … … … … … … (5)
2𝑓 − 𝑃𝑖
= 1.77
(0.11)(5200)
= = 1,92 𝑚𝑚 = 2 𝑚𝑚
2(150) − 0.11
The thickness of this head;
Corrosion allowance = 4 mm
𝑒
Take the thickness of the column = 2 + 4 = 6 𝑃𝑖 𝑅𝑐 𝐶𝑠
= … … … … … … … … (19)
mm 2𝑓𝐽 + 𝑃𝑖 (𝐶𝑠 − 0.2)

The nearest standard vertical vessel (ASME 0.11𝑁/𝑚𝑚2 × 315.6 𝑚𝑚 × 1.7706

=
Code) thickness is 6 mm. 2(1)(150 𝑁/𝑚𝑚2 ) + 0.11 𝑁/𝑚𝑚2 (1.7706 − 0.2)
= 3.41 𝑚𝑚
So, the thickness of the column diameter taken
is 6 mm. ii) Try a standard ellipsoidal head;

Then, the outside diameter = 5,270 mm 𝑃𝑖 𝐷𝑖

𝑒= … … … … … … … … … . . (20)
2𝐽𝑓 − 0.2𝑃𝑖
Design of domed end
0.11 𝑁/𝑚𝑚2 × 5260 𝑚𝑚
=
Design temperature and pressure is taken as 2(1)(150𝑁/𝑚𝑚2 ) − 0.2(0.11 𝑁/𝑚𝑚2 )
10% above the operating temperature and = 5.9 𝑚𝑚 = 6 𝑚𝑚
pressure.
III) Try a standard flat head;
110 𝑁
𝐷𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 = ( )( 1 ) 𝑃𝑖
100 𝑚𝑚2
𝑒 = 𝐶𝑝 𝐷𝑒 √ … … … … … … … … … (21)
= 0.11 𝑁/𝑚𝑚2 𝑓

𝐷𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝑇𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 = (89.98)°𝐶 Use a full face gasket;

The design stress is 150 N/mm2 and the tensile 𝐶𝑝 = 0.4,

strength is 540 N/mm2.
i) Try a standard dished head (torispherical
head);
𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑤𝑛 𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑢𝑠, 𝑅𝑐 = 𝐷𝑖 = 5.2 𝑚
𝑘𝑛𝑢𝑐𝑘𝑙𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑢𝑠, 𝑅𝑘 = 6% × 𝑅𝑐 = 0.316 𝑚
A head of this size would be formed by
pressing: no joints, so J = 1.
1 𝑅𝑐
𝐶𝑠 = (3 + √ ) … … … … … … … … . (18)
4 𝑅𝑘
0.11 𝑁/𝑚𝑚2
𝑒 = 0.4 × 5 × 103 √
(150 𝑁/𝑚𝑚2 )
= 60.1 𝑚𝑚
From the calculations, the flat head shows the
inefficiency of a flat cover. It would be better to
use a flanged domed ahead. So, from the two
domed head, the ellipsoidal head is the most
economical. Take the thickness of the
ellipsoidal head as same as cylindrical section
which is 6 mm.

23 | P a g e
Dead weight of vessel Weight of insulation:

For preliminary calculations the approximate 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑤𝑜𝑜𝑙 𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 = 130 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3
weight of a cylindrical vessel with domed ends,
and uniform wall thickness, can be estimated 𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 =
from the following equation: (𝜋)(5.28)(24.8)(0.075) = 30.85 𝑚3

𝑊𝑣 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 =
= 240𝐶𝑣 𝐷𝑚 (𝐻𝑣 (30.85)(9.81)(130) = 39346,77 𝑁
+ 0.8𝐷𝑚 )𝑡 … … … … … … … … … (22)

Where, 𝑊𝑣 =total weight of shell, excluding 𝑑𝑜𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑓𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 =
internal fitting such as plates, N, 78,69𝑘𝑁
𝐶𝑣 = factor to account for the weight
of nozzle, manways and internal supports; 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡;
= 1.08 for vessels with only a few
𝑆ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑙 = 26.07 𝑘𝑁
internal fittings,
= 1.15 for distillation columns, or 𝑃𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑠 = 990.89 𝑘𝑁
similar vessels, with several manways, and with
plate support rings, or equivalent 𝐼𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 = 78.69 𝑘𝑁
fittings,
𝐻𝑣 = height, or length, between 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = 1096,85𝑘𝑁
tangent lines (the length of the cylindrical
Wind loading
section), m,
𝐷𝑚 = mean diameter of vessel = 1
𝑑𝑦𝑛𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑐 𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑑 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 = 𝐶𝑑 𝜌𝑎 𝑈𝑤 2
2
(𝐷𝑖 + 𝑡 𝑥 10−3 ), 𝑚
𝑡 = wall thickness, m 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑠𝑚𝑜𝑜𝑡ℎ 𝑐𝑦𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟 = 0.05𝑈𝑤 2
This calculation can give the rough estimation 𝑘𝑚
of the weight of this vessel with uniform 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝑓𝑜𝑟 160 =
ℎ𝑟
(0.05)(160) = 1280 𝑁/𝑚 2
thickness. For the thickness for the vessel, we
use the calculated thickness of 6 mm.
Therefore, take wind pressure as 1280 N/m2
𝑊𝑣 = 240(1.15)(3.30 + 0.008)(24.8
+ 0.8(5.27 + 0.008)) 8 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟, 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
= 5.28 + 2(6 + 75) 𝑥 10−3
= 211981 𝑁 = 211,98 𝑘𝑁 = 5,442 𝑚

𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔(𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟), 𝐹𝑤

= (1280)(5.442)
Weight of plates:
= 6965,76 𝑁/𝑚
𝜋
𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 = (5.2)2 = 21.73 𝑚2
4 Bending moment at bottom tangent line:
𝑘𝑁
𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑎 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒 = (1.2 ) (21.73 𝑚2 ) Where 𝑥 = 𝐻𝑣 = 24.8 𝑚(𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑛 ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡)
𝑚2
= 26.07 𝑘𝑁 𝑥2 (24.8)2
𝑀𝑥 = 𝐹𝑤 ( ) = (6965,76) ( )=
2 2
(Where 1.2 is factor for contacting plates, steel
2142110,51 𝑁𝑚
including typical liquid loading in kN/m2)
38 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑠 = (38)(26.07) = 990.89 𝑘𝑁

24 | P a g e
Analysis of stress Check elastic stability (buckling)
At bottom tangent line:
Pressure stresses: 𝐶𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑏𝑢𝑐𝑘𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠, 𝜎𝑐
𝑃𝐷 (1)(5260) 𝐸 𝑡
𝜎𝐿 = = = 219.16 𝑁/𝑚𝑚2 = ( )
4𝑡 4(6)
2
√3(1 − 𝑣 ) 𝑜 𝐷
𝑃𝐷 (1)(3300) 200000 6
𝜎ℎ = = = 137.54 𝑁/𝑚𝑚2 = ( )
2𝑡 2(6) √3(1 − (0.3) ) 5260
2

Where, 𝑃 = 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 (1 𝑁/ = 138.07 𝑁/𝑚𝑚2

𝑚𝑚2 )
𝐷 = 𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑛 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 (5.26 𝑚) When the vessel is not under pressure (where
𝑡 = 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 (6 𝑚𝑚) the maximum stress occur):
Dead weight stress:
𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 = 𝜎𝑤 + 𝜎𝑏 =
𝑊𝑣 211981 2.14 + 19.47 = 21.61 𝑁/𝑚𝑚2
𝜎𝑤 = =
𝜋(𝐷𝑖 + 𝑡)𝑡 𝜋(5260 + 6)6
The maximum stress is well below the critical
= 2.14 𝑁/𝑚𝑚2
buckling stress. Therefore, design is
Bending stress: satisfactory.

𝐷𝑜 = 5260 + 2(6) = 5272 𝑚𝑚 Design for skirt support

𝜋 𝜋 Material of construction for skirt support is

𝐼𝑣 = (𝐷𝑜 4 − 𝐷𝑖 4 ) = (52704 − 52604 )
64 64 stainless steel.
= 2.865 𝑥 1011 𝑚𝑚4
𝐷𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑠 = 135.519 𝑁/𝑚𝑚2
𝑌𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑔′ 𝑠 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑢𝑠 = 210000 𝑁/𝑚𝑚2
2142110,51 𝑥 103 5260 The maximum dead weight load on the skirt
𝜎𝑏 = ∓ ( + 6) will occurs when the vessel is full with water.
2.865 𝑥 1011 2
= 19.47𝑁/𝑚𝑚2 𝜋
𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡, 𝑊 = ( 𝐷𝑐 2 𝐻𝑣 ) 𝜌𝐿 𝑔
4
The resultant longitudinal stress is: 𝜋 𝑘𝑔 𝑚
= ( (5.2𝑚)2 (24.8𝑚)) (1000 3 ) (9.81 2 )
4 𝑚 𝑠
𝜎𝑧 = 𝜎𝐿 + 𝜎𝑤 ± 𝜎𝑏
= 5166.7𝑘/𝑁
𝜎𝑧 (𝑢𝑝𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑑) = 219.16 − 2.14 − 19.47 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑣𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑙 = 1096.85 𝑘𝑁
= +197.39 𝑁/𝑚𝑚2 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 = 1096.85 + 5166.70
= 6263.39 𝑘𝑁
𝜎𝑧 (𝑢𝑝𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑑) = 219 − 2.14 + 19.47
= +236.33 𝑁/𝑚𝑚2 𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑑 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔, 𝐹𝑤 = 6965.76 𝑁/𝑚

Take skirt support as 1.5 𝑥 5.25 𝑚 = 7.8 𝑚

height,
Bending moment at base skirt;

(𝐻𝑣 + 𝐻𝑠𝑘𝑖𝑟𝑡 )2
𝑀𝑠 = 𝐹𝑤 ( )
2
(24.8 + 7.8)2
= (6965.76) ( )
2
= 2691.71 𝑘𝑁𝑚

25 | P a g e
Take the skirt thickness same as the cylindrical 𝐷𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑥(𝑏) = 𝐷𝑖 + 2(𝑡 + 𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 )
thickness which is 6 mm.
= 5260 + 2(6 + 75)
4𝑀𝑠
𝜎𝑏𝑠 = = 5422 𝑚𝑚
𝜋(𝐷𝑐𝑦𝑙 + 𝑡𝑐𝑦𝑙 )𝑡𝑐𝑦𝑙 𝐷𝑐𝑦𝑙
Circumference of bolt circle = 5422 𝜋
2
= 69.83 𝑁/𝑚𝑚
Number of bolt required, at minimum
𝑊 recommended bolt spacing,
𝜎𝑤𝑠 (𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡) =
𝜋(𝐷𝑐𝑦𝑙 + 𝑡𝑐𝑦𝑙 )𝑡𝑐𝑦𝑙 3466 𝜋
= = 28.38
= 136.64 𝑁/𝑚𝑚2 600

𝑊 Closest multiple of 4, Nb = 20 bolts

𝜎𝑤𝑠 (𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔) =
𝜋(𝐷𝑐𝑦𝑙 + 𝑡𝑐𝑦𝑙 )𝑡𝑐𝑦𝑙
Take bolts design stress fb = 125 N/mm2 (typical
= 52.89 𝑁/𝑚𝑚2 design value)

The ‘test’ condition is with the cylindrical full

of the slurry for hydraulic test. In estimating
total weight, the weight of slurry in the Take W = operating value = weight of cylinder
cylindrical has been counted twice. The weight
1 4𝑀𝑠
has not been adjusted to allow for this as the 𝐴𝑏 = [ − 𝑊]
𝑁𝑏 𝑓𝑏 𝐷𝑏
error is small, and on the ‘safe side’.

𝑀𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝜎𝑠 (𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑣𝑒) = 385.37 𝑚𝑚2

= 205.82 𝑁/𝑚𝑚2
Bolt root diameter;
𝑀𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝜎𝑠 (𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑒) = 16.29 𝑁/𝑚𝑚2
2808.17 × 4
Take the joint factor 1.0. The criteria for design; 𝐷𝑏𝑜𝑙𝑡 = √
𝜋

𝜎𝑠 (𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑒) ≤ 𝑓𝑠 𝐽 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃 = 22.15 𝑚𝑚

16.29 ≤ 1.0 × 150 𝑠𝑖𝑛 90
Hence from the bolt size = nominal diameter
16.29 ≤ 150 (BS 4190: 1967) the bolt that is going to be used
𝑡𝑐𝑦𝑙 is M24 with root area = 353 mm2;
𝜎𝑠 (𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑣𝑒) ≥ 0.125𝐸 ( ) 𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝜃
𝐷𝑐𝑦𝑙
6
208.82 ≥ 0.125 × 210000 × ( ) 𝑠𝑖𝑛 90
5260 Total compressive load on the base ring per unit
length;
208.82 ≥ 29.94
Both criteria are satisfied; hence add 2 mm for
corrosion allowance to give the thickness of
skirt support 6 mm.

Base ring and anchor bolts

Approximate pitch circle

26 | P a g e
 4𝑀𝑠 𝑊 = 145.47 𝑘𝑁/𝑚
𝐹𝑏 = [ 2 + ]
𝜋𝐷𝑐𝑦𝑙 𝜋𝐷𝑐𝑦𝑙
Bearing pressure range is 3.5 N/mm2 to 7
N/mm2. Therefore the bearing pressure was
taken as 5 N/mm2. The minimum width of the
base ring is; ii) Top column inlet
𝐹𝑏 1 From ASPEN simulation,
𝐿𝑏 = × 3 = 29.09 𝑚𝑚
𝑓𝑐 10 𝑡𝑜𝑝 𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑙𝑒𝑡, 𝑊 = 1806,51 𝑘𝑔/ℎ
Actual width required; = 𝐿𝑟 + 𝑡𝑐𝑦𝑙 + 𝜌 = 944.5 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3
50 𝑚𝑚 = 152 + 6 + 50 = 208 𝑚𝑚
𝑘𝑔 0.45
8.41 (24769,28 )
ℎ
𝐿𝑟 = 𝑑, 𝑜𝑝𝑡 = = 0,094𝑚
(989,12 𝑘𝑔/𝑚^3 )0.31
𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑒𝑑𝑔𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑘𝑖𝑟𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑒𝑑𝑔𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔
. Similar procedure was followed for the other
flanges and the results are shown in Appendix
Actual bearing pressure on concrete D
foundation;

𝑓𝑐′ = 75 𝑁/𝑚𝑚2

The minimum base ring thickness;

3𝑓𝑐′
𝑡𝑏 = 𝐿𝑟 √ = 140 𝑚𝑚
𝑓𝑟

Flange design
Optimum diameter of flange was calculated
using the following equation:

𝑊 0.45
𝐷 𝑜𝑝𝑡 = 8.41
𝜌0.31

i) Feed Inlet
From ASPEN simulation,
𝐹𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛𝑙𝑒𝑡, 𝑊 = 129500𝑘𝑔/ℎ = 35.97𝑘𝑔/𝑠
𝜌 = 944.5 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3
𝑑, 𝑜𝑝𝑡 = 8.41(129500𝑘𝑔/ℎ)0.45 /(944.5 𝑘𝑔/
𝑚3 )0.31 = 158.2 ≈ 150

The selected bolts are listed in the Appendix D

selected from Appendix E, (Sinnot, 2005)

27 | P a g e
Absorption column purchased equipment cost

The absorption column cost was estimated using empirical size-factor cost correlations reported by
Sinnott and Towler (2009). The purchased equipment cost was determined by taking into the account
the shell, tray and insulation weight of vessel.

The following equation is used to calculate the equipment cost;

𝐶𝑒 = 𝑎 + 𝑏𝑆 𝑛 (Sinnot & Towler, 2009).

Ce = purchased equipment cost on a U.S. Gulf Coast basis, January 2006 (CE index = 478.6, NF refinery
inflation index = 1961.6);
And a, b = cost constants in Appendix E;
S = size parameter, units given in Appendix E
(Total weight of vessel in kg) = 1096, 85kN=111847, 55 kg
n = exponent for that type of equipment.

For an absorption column of stainless steel 304L,

𝐶𝑒 = 𝑎 + 𝑏𝑆 𝑛 = −1000 + 600 (111847.550.6 ) = 631692.75 𝑈𝑆𝐷 = 𝑅 8.8 𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑜𝑛

28 | P a g e
References:
AspenTech, 1999. Physical property methods and models. United States of America: Aspen Plus.

Chien, L. I., Yih, B. & Lee, H.-Y., 2017. Process Simulation and Design of Acrylic Acid Production.
In: Chemical Engineering Porcess Simulation. s.l.:Elsevier Inc., pp. 275-289.

Culp, A., Holmes, K., Nagrath, R. & Nessenson, D., 2013. Propane to Acrylic Acid, Pennsylvania:
University of Pennsylvania Scholarly Columns.
Henley, E. J., Seader, J. D. & Roper, K. D., 2011. Seperation Process Principles. 3rd ed. s.l.:John
Wiley & sons.

Lin, S., Manney, K., Smith, D. & Stafford, A., 2003. Acrylic acid production: seperation and
purification.
Plant Index, 2017. Chemical engineering plant cost. [Online] Available at:
http://www.chemengonline.com/pci [Accessed 21 Ocotber 2017].
Sinnot, R. & Towler, G., 2009. Chemical Engineering Design. 5th ed. s.l.:Butterworth-Heinemann.

Sinnot, R. & Towler, G., 2013. Chemical Engineering Design. 2nd ed. Oxford: Butterworth-
Heinemann.

Sinnott, R. K., 2005. Chemical Engineering design. Volume 6 ed. London: Elsevier Butterworth-
Heinemann.
Towler, R. S., 1999. Chemical engineering design. 2nd ed. s.l.:ELSEVIER.
USA, H., 2012. Highland Tank and Manufacturing company US. [Online] Available at:
https://www.highlandtank.com/AdminHighlandData/ProductCatalogs/2013_HT_Water_Tanks_and_ASM
E_Pressure_Vessels/files/assets/basic-html/page62.html [Accessed 10 October 2017].

The Dow Chemical Company, Acrylic Acid Instability and Reactivity Hazards, Dow Answer Center,
2017. Available at : https://dowac.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2462/~/acrylic-acid-
instability-and-reactivity-hazards [Accesed 23 Nov 2017]

Schork, R. L. a. J., 2006. Modeling of the Inhibition Mechanism of Acrylic Acid Polymerization. Ind.
Eng. Chem. , Volume 45 , p. 3001–3008.

29 | P a g e
Acknowledgements
• Dr. D. Lokhat with his guidance

• Dr. W. Nelson for his ideas

30 | P a g e